Tuesday, September 12, 2017

MAHONING TOWNSHIP, MONTOUR COUNTY PA - A 2-YEAR-OLD PIT BULL WAS EUTHANIZED AFTER ATTACKING SOMEONE FOR THE THIRD TIME

A 2-year-old dog, previously ruled as dangerous in Mahoning Township, has been euthanized after biting someone for the third time.

The dog, named Scotch, was euthanized on Monday after a bite Saturday in the 300 block of Maple Street, dog warden John Graham said Wednesday.

Shannon Powers also confirmed the euthanization. She serves as communications director of the state's Department of Agriculture, which oversees dog law wardens in the state. Graham said testing is being done on whether the animal had rabies.

Mahoning Township police reported, in a news release Sunday night, they and the Agriculture Department were investigating the incident.

The reddish brown PIT BULL TERRIER, owned by Samarjit Sidhu, escaped from the front door of his home and charged toward the victim who was on foot, police said. The dog caused two lacerations and one puncture wound to the person's right hand with the person falling to the ground in an adjacent yard, police reported.

A relative of Sidhu took the victim to Geisinger Medical Center for treatment.

In March, Sidhu pleaded guilty to harboring a dangerous dog and to failing to keep the animal under reasonable control. Montour County District Judge Marvin Shrawder ordered him to pay fines and court costs totaling $584 for the dangerous dog citation and $184 in costs for not having the dog under reasonable control.

Sidhu previously said he was making plans to send the pit bull to India to live with a cousin who owns pit bulls.

Graham cited Sidhu for that incident involving Thomas J. Conlin. At a meeting in March, Conlin told the township supervisors the dog attacked him and his wife Marie, who fractured her leg, as they were walking on Maple Street on Feb. 22.

The dog had previously bitten township resident Nancy Whelan.

If a dog has been determined to be dangerous, the owner must comply with a number of state Agriculture Department regulations including a $500 annual fee, posting of warning signs, carrying $50,000 in liability insurance, submitting to at least two annual inspections, microchipping, confinement, muzzling and restraining the dog when it is outside an enclosure, according to Powers.

I love my dogs. They have brought liveliness, joy and love to us and were a huge comfort to me during some really hard times. But no matter what my feelings for my dogs, I cannot fathom someone so bereft of decency that he would go this far to maintain such a threat to his neighbors' safety. Dogs are supposed to be a domesticated animal. Why would you want a "pet" like this?

This is not love for your pet anymore; it is mental illness. And then to think he could solve the problem by flying the vicious animal to India.

They don't like to euthanize animals over there so I guess the dog could have a long and storied career of mauling. What on Earth?!

THE CODE OF ALABAMA - 1975

Title: 6 CIVIL PRACTICE

Section 6-5-120

Defined.

A "nuisance" is anything that works hurt, inconvenience or damage to another. The fact that the act done may otherwise be lawful does not keep it from being a nuisance. The inconvenience complained of must not be fanciful or such as would affect only one of a fastidious taste, but it should be such as would affect an ordinary reasonable man.

(Code 1907, §5193; Code 1923, §9271; Code 1940, T. 7, §1081

Section 6-5-121

_____________________

Distinction between public and private nuisances; right of action generally.

Nuisances are either public or private. A public nuisance is one which damages all persons who come within the sphere of its operation, though it may vary in its effects on individuals. A private nuisance is one limited in its injurious effects to one or a few individuals. Generally, a public nuisance gives no right of action to any individual, but must be abated by a process instituted in the name of the state. A private nuisance gives a right of action to the person injured.

Use of force in defense of a person.

(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (4), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:

(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.

(2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling.

(3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy.

(4) In the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is in the process of sabotaging or attempting to sabotage a federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is attempting to remove, or has forcefully removed, a person against his or her will from any dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle when the person has a legal right to be there, and provided that the person using the deadly physical force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring. The legal presumption that a person using deadly physical force is justified to do so pursuant to this subdivision does not apply if:

a. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner or lessee, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;

b. The person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used;

c. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

d. The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his or her official duties.

(b) A person who is justified under subsection (a) in using physical force, including deadly physical force, and who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is in any place where he or she has the right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), a person is not justified in using physical force if:

(1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he or she provoked the use of unlawful physical force by such other person.

(2) He or she was the initial aggressor, except that his or her use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he or she withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his or her intent to do so, but the latter person nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force.

(3) The physical force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.

(d) A person who uses force, including deadly physical force, as justified and permitted in this section is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the force was determined to be unlawful.

(e) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force described in subsection (a), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.